Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing an award dated 8th August 2007 passed by learned Tribunal on the ground that the compensation awarded to the appellant was inadequate.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal are that that appellant, a German national, had come to India as a tourist. She was traveling in a bus and was going to Mount Abu from Udaipur when the said bus met with an accident with a truck coming from opposite direction. In this accident, the appellant lost her arm on junction up one third and middle one third. She filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and she was awarded compensation in following terms:

(i) Pain and sufferings: Rs. 2,00,000/-

(ii) Medical bills: DM 1,14,367.08 (Rs. 15,61,110.64)

(iii) Bill of private hospital: Rs. 45,905/-

(iv) Attendant expenses: Rs. 3,22,500/-

(v) Special diet and conveyance: Rs. 25,000/-

(vi) Permanent disability: 2,03,508.50DM

(Applying the exchange rate of 13.65 rupees) Rs. 27,77,891.02

(vii) Loss of enjoyment & amenity: Rs. 2,00,000/-

Total: Rs. 53,32,406.66

3. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that it was not in consonance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal had not taken into consideration the future prospects of the appellant despite there being sufficient evidence on record to show that the appellant had a bright future growth prospects. The Tribunal arbitrarily restricted the damages of loss of earnings to 20% of her earning capacity instead of 70% of her earning capacity. The Tribunal should have calculated loss of earning capacity in terms of Schedule-I Part-II of the Workmen Compensation Act. It is further submitted that the Tribunal wrongly deducted income tax and surcharge out of gross income for calculating the loss of income. The Tribunal should have calculated loss of income taking into account the gross income. The Tribunal wrongly applied conversion rate of 13.65 per Dutch Mark after calculating loss of income in Dutch Marks whereas the currency prevalent at the time of making award was EURO. The Tribunal also did not award amount for purchasing a special car by the appellant as after accident she could not drive ordinary car. The Tribunal did not award costs of petition in favour of the appellant and the Tribunal did not take into consideration that the appellant has to incur future expenses on an attendant.

4. It is settled law that the Court in case of accident has to award compensation for pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses. The pecuniary losses fall under following heads:

(i) Expenses incurred on treatment, including doctors fee, medicines, etc.

(ii) Expenses caused by any injury to loss of earning.

(iii) Expenses/loss otherwise due to accident.

The non-pecuniary loss falls under following heads:

(i) Pain and sufferings

(ii) Loss of amenities

(iii) Loss of expectation of life.

5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lac towards pain and sufferings to the appellant because of the accident. The Tribunal, in paragraph 16 of the award, thought that the compensation awarded to a person must commensurate with the status of a person. I consider that the observation made by the Tribunal that the compensation for pain and suffering has to be in accordance with the status of a person is anti-Constitutional. The Constitution of India mandates that everybody is equal before law and the persons cannot be discriminated on the basis of colour of the skin, caste, creed or financial status. The pain and sufferings suffered by a poor man for same injury cannot be considered less than the pain and suffering of a rich man. The Court cannot award small amounts on account of pain and sufferings to the poor persons and hefty amounts for pain and sufferings for same injury to the rich person only because a person was rich. The value of each human life in the eyes of law has to be the same